Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


* * * * - 8 votes

911 Pentagon Video Footage


  • Please log in to reply
3292 replies to this topic

#3076    Babe Ruth

Babe Ruth

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • Closed
  • 8,732 posts
  • Joined:23 Dec 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:27North 80West

Posted 22 December 2012 - 08:03 PM

Yes Mr. Crew Chief, I know you are a huge source of knowlege regarding pilot training. :gun:

93 wasn't shot down because it wasn't there.  It was all an elaborately staged event.  All day long, and ever since.


#3077    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 32,610 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 22 December 2012 - 08:17 PM

View PostBabe Ruth, on 22 December 2012 - 08:03 PM, said:

Yes Mr. Crew Chief,...

I was a C-5, DCC, and from such a position I knew that United 93 crashed near Shanksville and did not land anywhere else. You seem to have forgotten that passengers and crew remains were recovered from the crash site near Shanksville along with wreckage from United 93, which was a B-757-200 series aircraft and only a certain number of those aircraft were built and can be accounted for. As I have said before, you cannot switch such aircraft and it would have taken me less than 30 minutes to expose a switched aircraft, so with that in mind, there was no way the government could have pulled off such an attack and not get caught.

How long did time go by before the specifics of the Watergate scandal was revealed? It has been over 11 years and yet not one shred of evidence of a 9/11 false flag operation has surfaced.

Quote

I know you are a huge source of knowlege regarding pilot training. :gun:

Well, I have been a pilot since the late 1960s.

Quote

...93 wasn't shot down because it wasn't there.

On the contrary, recovery crews and others, including coroner Wally Miller, have confirmed the crash site as that of United 93. United 93 was tracked by radar to the location of the crash site near Shanksville and that is where the radar contact ended.

In addition to radar evidence and visual confirmation, we have photo confirmation of wreckage from United 93 and I would like to add that there is no radar data that paints United 93 in the sky after the B-757 crashed and ATC confirmed the loss of radar contact on United 93 near the crash site and remember, United Airlines, operator of United 93, confirmed the loss of United 93.

In addition to ATC communications and radar data, further evidence supporting the crash site of United 93 is based on the flight recorders and infrared satellite data. Question is, where is your evidence that United 93 landed anywhere else?

Edited by skyeagle409, 22 December 2012 - 08:55 PM.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#3078    turbonium

turbonium

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,344 posts
  • Joined:14 Mar 2005

Posted 23 December 2012 - 04:00 AM

View Postfrenat, on 22 December 2012 - 02:10 PM, said:

That, or you assume he spoke perfectly when he really meant he saw that a pland HAD hit the tower.  

  "...he really meant he saw that a pland HAD hit the tower."...being what you assume..

Not that it matters anyway.

If he "really meant he saw that a plane HAD hit the tower", he still said he saw it on the school's TV set, Which is impossible, as we know. You want to change what "he really meant" there? Perhaps..er.. that he watched  it on his rec room TV set??


View Postfrenat, on 22 December 2012 - 02:10 PM, said:

Nah, much better for you to assume he needed a live feed of everything right?  

Better for you to actually read what I've said, so you won't put words in my mouth.

I think he most likely had a live feed of the first plane hit. But I certainly never said or implied whatsoever that he "needed a live feed of everything".You hatched that egg.  And now there's egg on your face, so to speak.

View Postfrenat, on 22 December 2012 - 02:10 PM, said:

Hilarious that you call him an utter moron but at the same time want him to be the indispensible mastermind of the operation.

Hilarious that you leap to massive, entirely wrong, conclusions about my position.

He is indeed a moron. In no way is he the "mastermind" of the operation. I'd be amazed if he knew how to organize his wardrobe closet, :su


#3079    frenat

frenat

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 3,141 posts
  • Joined:22 Jun 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Fort Wayne, IN

Posted 23 December 2012 - 04:07 AM

View Postturbonium, on 23 December 2012 - 04:00 AM, said:


  "...he really meant he saw that a pland HAD hit the tower."...being what you assume..

Not that it matters anyway.

If he "really meant he saw that a plane HAD hit the tower", he still said he saw it on the school's TV set, Which is impossible, as we know. You want to change what "he really meant" there? Perhaps..er.. that he watched  it on his rec room TV set??
Why impossible to see at the school?  There was coverage on every network showing a plane HAD hit the tower.  It is far more likely he was talking about the results, a plane had hit the tower, than the actual impact.

View Postturbonium, on 23 December 2012 - 04:00 AM, said:


Better for you to actually read what I've said, so you won't put words in my mouth.

I think he most likely had a live feed of the first plane hit. But I certainly never said or implied whatsoever that he "needed a live feed of everything".You hatched that egg.  And now there's egg on your face, so to speak.
Hardly.  You've still not given any reason why he would have a live feed in the first place.  I doubt there would be a reason for anyone to have a live feed of the first impact.  And I doubt you'll come up with a good reason.

View Postturbonium, on 23 December 2012 - 04:00 AM, said:

Hilarious that you leap to massive, entirely wrong, conclusions about my position.
Only person jumping to conclusion here is you Mr. live feed.

View Postturbonium, on 23 December 2012 - 04:00 AM, said:

He is indeed a moron. In no way is he the "mastermind" of the operation. I'd be amazed if he knew how to organize his wardrobe closet, :su
Then no reason whatsoever for him to have a live feed of the first crash and far more likely he saw the aftermath on the news like everyone else.

-Reality is not determined by your lack of comprehension.
-Never let facts stand in the way of a good conspiracy theory.
-If I wanted to pay for commercials I couldn't skip I'd sign up for Hulu Plus.
-There are no bad ideas, just great ideas that go horribly wrong.
If you have to insist that you've won an Internet argument, you've probably lost badly. - Danth's Law

#3080    turbonium

turbonium

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,344 posts
  • Joined:14 Mar 2005

Posted 23 December 2012 - 10:25 AM

View Postfrenat, on 23 December 2012 - 04:07 AM, said:

Why impossible to see at the school?  There was coverage on every network showing a plane HAD hit the tower.  It is far more likely he was talking about the results, a plane had hit the tower, than the actual impact.

Bush said...

"...and I saw an airplane hit the tower.."

"..I had seen this plane fly into the first building"

Nobody knew it was a plane, or an internal ex[;osion, or anything else at the time Bush "saw" iit on a TV. News reports were not claiming it was a plane that hit the tower. It was all a matter of speculation at the time. So even if your version was correct, it makes no sense - because it wasn't known to be a plane that hit it, yet Bush said it was a plane.

He said he saw it - on two seperate occasions. You don't like him saying it, so you make up your own version of it to excuse the reality of it.

And you think elementary schools like to watch TV in a hallway, I suppose. What a joke.


View Postfrenat, on 23 December 2012 - 04:07 AM, said:


Hardly.  You've still not given any reason why he would have a live feed in the first place.  I doubt there would be a reason for anyone to have a live feed of the first impact.  And I doubt you'll come up with a good reason.

He is still (supposedly, anyway) the Chief in Command. The President, the great leader in charge of such matters. Just because he happens to be a moron does not mean he has no access to a live feed. Not to mention that his staff might want to know if the plans are being executed in real time.


He may be a stooge, but the people around him are certainly not clueless. Even you can see that.


View Postfrenat, on 23 December 2012 - 04:07 AM, said:


Then no reason whatsoever for him to have a live feed of the first crash and far more likely he saw the aftermath on the news like everyone else.



#3081    frenat

frenat

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 3,141 posts
  • Joined:22 Jun 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Fort Wayne, IN

Posted 23 December 2012 - 02:07 PM

View Postturbonium, on 23 December 2012 - 10:25 AM, said:

Bush said...

"...and I saw an airplane hit the tower.."

"..I had seen this plane fly into the first building"

Nobody knew it was a plane, or an internal ex[;osion, or anything else at the time Bush "saw" iit on a TV. News reports were not claiming it was a plane that hit the tower.
Yes, they were.  Here is a radio program that was getting their news from the TV.  The time is from right before the second impact.

They also said a plane has crashed in the tower

View Postturbonium, on 23 December 2012 - 10:25 AM, said:

It was all a matter of speculation at the time. So even if your version was correct, it makes no sense - because it wasn't known to be a plane that hit it, yet Bush said it was a plane.
Except they were all saying it was a plane, albeit likely a small one.


View Postturbonium, on 23 December 2012 - 10:25 AM, said:

He said he saw it - on two seperate occasions. You don't like him saying it, so you make up your own version of it to excuse the reality of it.
The only person making up their own version is you, Mr. live feed.


View Postturbonium, on 23 December 2012 - 10:25 AM, said:

And you think elementary schools like to watch TV in a hallway, I suppose. What a joke.
You think he was only in hallways?  That he NEVER went into an office?  Have you been in a school lately?  Every school I've seen since the late 80's has TVs in every room.  Highly likely that those in the office where he likely spent some time were watching the news that DID say a plane had hit the tower.

View Postturbonium, on 23 December 2012 - 10:25 AM, said:

He is still (supposedly, anyway) the Chief in Command. The President, the great leader in charge of such matters. Just because he happens to be a moron does not mean he has no access to a live feed. Not to mention that his staff might want to know if the plans are being executed in real time.


He may be a stooge, but the people around him are certainly not clueless. Even you can see that.
A live feed that there is no reason to exist.  Still far more likely that he saw the results on the news like everyone else.  Keep up the humor Turb!

Edited by frenat, 23 December 2012 - 02:13 PM.

-Reality is not determined by your lack of comprehension.
-Never let facts stand in the way of a good conspiracy theory.
-If I wanted to pay for commercials I couldn't skip I'd sign up for Hulu Plus.
-There are no bad ideas, just great ideas that go horribly wrong.
If you have to insist that you've won an Internet argument, you've probably lost badly. - Danth's Law

#3082    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 32,610 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 23 December 2012 - 03:07 PM

View Postturbonium, on 23 December 2012 - 10:25 AM, said:

Bush said...

"...and I saw an airplane hit the tower.."

"..I had seen this plane fly into the first building"

Nobody knew it was a plane, or an internal ex[;osion, or anything else at the time Bush "saw" iit on a TV. It was all a matter of speculation at the time. So even if your version was correct, it makes no sense - because it wasn't known to be a plane that hit it, yet Bush said it was a plane.

Think again!





Quote

News reports were not claiming it was a plane that hit the tower.




KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#3083    Babe Ruth

Babe Ruth

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • Closed
  • 8,732 posts
  • Joined:23 Dec 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:27North 80West

Posted 23 December 2012 - 03:41 PM

View Postturbonium, on 23 December 2012 - 04:00 AM, said:


  "...he really meant he saw that a pland HAD hit the tower."...being what you assume..

Not that it matters anyway.

If he "really meant he saw that a plane HAD hit the tower", he still said he saw it on the school's TV set, Which is impossible, as we know. You want to change what "he really meant" there? Perhaps..er.. that he watched  it on his rec room TV set??




Better for you to actually read what I've said, so you won't put words in my mouth.

I think he most likely had a live feed of the first plane hit. But I certainly never said or implied whatsoever that he "needed a live feed of everything".You hatched that egg.  And now there's egg on your face, so to speak.



Hilarious that you leap to massive, entirely wrong, conclusions about my position.

He is indeed a moron. In no way is he the "mastermind" of the operation. I'd be amazed if he knew how to organize his wardrobe closet, :su

Agreed!

To my knowledge there are only 2 recordings of impact with the first tower.  One from a fixed parking lot camera that is extremely short, and inconclusive as to type of aircraft.  But clearly something struck the tower.

The other is the notorious and controversial Naudet brothers video, which makes it clear that it was a Boeing.

I'm still undecided as to which is correct.

Anyway, point is that Bush could not have seen the first impact.  But he is a known liar, so....


#3084    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 32,610 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 23 December 2012 - 03:44 PM

View PostBabe Ruth, on 23 December 2012 - 03:41 PM, said:

Agreed!

To my knowledge there are only 2 recordings of impact with the first tower.  One from a fixed parking lot camera that is extremely short, and inconclusive as to type of aircraft.  But clearly something struck the tower.

It was clear the aircraft was a B-767.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#3085    Babe Ruth

Babe Ruth

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • Closed
  • 8,732 posts
  • Joined:23 Dec 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:27North 80West

Posted 23 December 2012 - 03:50 PM

What's clear to you Sky is very murky to others.  You are a terrific cheerleader for the official narrative, but you either deny or overlook the vast amount of evidence that contradicts the official story.


#3086    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 32,610 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 23 December 2012 - 03:55 PM

View PostBabe Ruth, on 23 December 2012 - 03:50 PM, said:

What's clear to you Sky is very murky to others.  You are a terrific cheerleader for the official narrative, but you either deny or overlook the vast amount of evidence that contradicts the official story.

The evidence has taken side with the official story and you have yet to provide evidence to the contrary. :no: To put it in another way, you have failed to provide evidence that refutes the official story. I have noticed that you have been contradicting yourself time after time.

Edited by skyeagle409, 23 December 2012 - 04:24 PM.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#3087    Q24

Q24

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,924 posts
  • Joined:12 Oct 2006

Posted 23 December 2012 - 04:39 PM

View PostCzero 101, on 21 December 2012 - 10:05 PM, said:

It doesn't necessarily take the "immediate response" circumstance out of the picture, but it also doesn't make SkyEagle wrong, and would seem to be dependant upon whether the incidents that day had been officially deemed "terrorist attacks" at the time the decision(s) were made. And while it seems that the "immediate response" exception would take precidence over requests that require Presidential approval, there is nothing in 3025.1 that deals with the authorization to use deadly force against civilians, aside from the following blanket definition


and this list of priorities:


My emphasis added. But is that enough to justify deadly force against US civilians...?

Firstly, thank heavens for someone who, unlike skyeagle, can focus and coherently discuss an issue.  Second, I agree that “immediate response” takes precedence in situations involving threat to life and/or property.  Whilst shootdown authority is not specifically mentioned, the text can be interpreted to mean any military action to mitigate the threat.  Could that include deadly force against civilians?  I don’t see any reason why not.  As General Arnold said, We will take lives in the air to save lives on the ground.”

If this interpretation of the directives was invalid, then why did the 9/11 Commission state, It is possible that NORAD commanders would have ordered a shootdown in the absence of the authorization communicated by the Vice President...”?  The 9/11 Commission seem to be aware that the directives provide a quite valid legal defence, if needed, for anyone who took the decision to shootdown another hijacked airliner after circumstances witnessed at the WTC and Pentagon, even in lieu of higher authorisation.

Of course skyeagle is wrong on this point.  He believes that a shootdown could only possibly occur with Presidential approval, and that is far from the case.  It is a completely ineffective argument to attempt against a case for the shootdown of Flight 93.

Edited by Q24, 23 December 2012 - 04:40 PM.

Operation Northwoods was a 1962 plan by the US Department of Defense to cause acts of violence, blamed on Cuba, in order to generate U.S. public support for military action against the Cuban government. The plan called for various false flag actions, such as staged terrorist attacks and plane hijackings, on U.S. and Cuban soil.

#3088    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 32,610 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 23 December 2012 - 05:25 PM

View PostQ24, on 23 December 2012 - 04:39 PM, said:

It is possible that NORAD commanders would have ordered a shootdown in the absence of the authorization communicated by the Vice President...”?  

I don't think you understood what I have said. There was no shootdown order before United 93 crashed and President Bush; the Commander-in-Chief, issued the order and that order was passed down the chain of command. That is how it worked and what happened.

You also ignored the fact the military had no idea where United 93 was until after it crashed, which is another nail in the coffin on the claim that United 93 was shot down. What you are telling me is that you have no clue how things work in the real world. :no:

Recap time:

Quote

10:09 AM1 minute, 57 seconds

"The fighter pilots do not know if they have permission to shoot down planes. A commander tells them they do not. (Warning: profanity at the end of the clip)"

http://www.nytimes.c.../911-tapes.html

The time listed is after United 93 crashed and yet you've claim that United 93 was shot down, and you made that claim despite the fact there were no shootdown orders issued while United 93 was airborne.

Simply making things up in your mind just ain't gonna get it. You either post evidence or you don't, and if you fail to do so, you have no case. :no:

Quote

Interview with Vice President Cheney

"VICE PRES. CHENEY:

"...It's a presidential-level decision, and the president made, I think, exactly the right call in this case, to say, "I wished we'd had combat air patrol up over New York."

--NBC, 'Meet the Press' 16 September 2001

So once again, you will notice the time of that message was after United 93 crashed, in other words, there was no shootdown order prior to the crash of United 93, which basically throws cold water on your claim that United 93 was shot down.

Edited by skyeagle409, 23 December 2012 - 06:11 PM.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#3089    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 32,610 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 24 December 2012 - 05:48 AM

View PostQ24, on 21 December 2012 - 02:01 PM, said:

The following directives show that you don’t have a clue: -

CJCSI 3610.01A:  AIRCRAFT PIRACY (HIJACKING) AND DESTRUCTION OF DERELICT AIRBORNE OBJECTS: -


In the event of a hijacking, the NMCC will be notified by the most expeditious means by the FAA. The NMCC will, with the exception of immediate responses as authorized by reference d, forward requests for DOD assistance to the Secretary of Defense for approval. DOD assistance to the FAA will be provided in accordance with reference d.



Your first mistake: under routine circumstances, authority is not restricted to the President but extends to the Secretary of Defence.  Of course, apart from, as stated above, “with the exception of immediate responses as authorized by reference d.”.


Reference d of the directive above, refers to the directive below...

DOD Directive 3025.15:  Military Assistance to Civil Authorities: -


Immediate Response. Requests for an immediate response (i.e., any form of immediate action taken by a DoD Component or military commander to save lives, prevent human suffering, or mitigate great property damage under imminently serious conditions) may be made to any Component or Command. The DoD Components that receive verbal requests from civil authorities for support in an exigent emergency may initiate informal planning and, if required, immediately respond as authorized in DoD Directive 3025.1.



Which in turn refers to the directive below...

DOD Directive 3025.1:  Military Support to Civil Authorities (MSCA): -


Imminently serious condition resulting from any civil emergency or attack may require immediate action by military commanders, or by responsible officials of other DoD Agencies, to save lives, prevent human suffering, or mitigate great property damage.  When such conditions exist and time does not permit prior approval from higher headquarters, local military commanders and responsible officials of other DoD Components are authorized by this Directive, subject to any supplemental direction that may be provided by their DoD Component, to take necessary action to respond to requests of civil authorities.  All such necessary action is referred to in this Directive as “Immediate Response.”



Nothing there giving authority for commanders to go over the head of the President of the United States.  Let's do a simple review.

Quote

9-11 Fighter Pilot: We Wouldn't Have Shot Down Hijackers

The pilot of one of two U.S. military jets that were scrambled on 9-11 moments after kamikaze hijacker Mohamed Atta slammed American Airlines Flight 11 into Tower One of the World Trade Center said Wednesday that he wouldn't have been able to stop the attack even if he intercepted the plane.

"If we had intercepted American 11, we probably would have watched it crash," the pilot, identified only by his military codename "Nasty," told the Cape Cod Times. "We didn't have the authority to (shoot it down)."
As part of the 102nd Fighter Wing flying out of Otis Air National Guard Base on Cape Cod, "Nasty" and his partner, codenamed "Duff," were scrambled at 8:46 a.m. as news of Flight 11's hijacking reached the base.
Coincidentally, at the very moment, the plane slammed into Tower One.

"We didn't suspect they would use kamikaze tactics that morning," the pilot told the Times. "We weren't ready for that type of an attack, to quickly shoot down one of our own airplanes." When United Airlines Flight 175, piloted by Atta's hijack-partner Marwan Al Shehhi, crashed into Tower Two at 9:02 a.m., the two F-15's were about 71 miles - eight minutes away - from Manhattan.

By the time "Nasty" got word of a second hijacked plane, it had already smashed into Tower Two, he told the paper. But the idea that the F-15's, had they been scrambled earlier, might have been able to shoot down the hijackers is pure conjecture, "Nasty" told the paper.

At the time, military pilots had no such standing orders. Absent a presidential directive they had no authority to blow a commercial airliner out of the sky.

http://www.freerepub...ws/737242/posts

As I have said earlier, the President of the United States is the Commander-in-Chief. I might add that the F-16 pilots from Andrews AFB were not familiar with NORAD's air defense techniques and protocols nor trained to shoot down airliners and Shanksville was NOT a "weapons-free" zone. In other words, United 93 was well within the safety zone over Shanksville when it crashed since the "weapons-free" zone was within the Washington D.C. area and nowhere near Shanksville.

Edited by skyeagle409, 24 December 2012 - 06:02 AM.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#3090    Q24

Q24

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,924 posts
  • Joined:12 Oct 2006

Posted 26 December 2012 - 03:44 PM

View Postskyeagle409, on 24 December 2012 - 05:48 AM, said:

Nothing there giving authority for commanders to go over the head of the President of the United States.

Yes there is you numpty.  It’s written plain as day in Directive 3025.1, “When such conditions exist and time does not permit prior approval from higher headquarters...”.  You obviously have reading and/or comprehension difficulties and/or are deliberately ignoring black and white facts.

Further, the red text in the link you have quoted is media commentary/opinion which is not always the most accurate, and is in reference to the hijacked Flight 11; the first airliner to impact a target – at which time commanders could not know there was an imminent and serious threat to life and/or property which might prompt them to “Immediate Response” so the pilot comment is no surprise: "If we had intercepted American 11, we probably would have watched it crash".  Not so, when it came to Flight 93 which is the proposed subject of a shootdown – awareness had increased and U.S. air defenses had upped their game by that point over an hour after the first crash.

Operation Northwoods was a 1962 plan by the US Department of Defense to cause acts of violence, blamed on Cuba, in order to generate U.S. public support for military action against the Cuban government. The plan called for various false flag actions, such as staged terrorist attacks and plane hijackings, on U.S. and Cuban soil.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users